|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Should we create and use a system for ranking players? |
Mon, 29 March 2004 13:02 |
|
|
An interesting series of questions.
The voting options do not completely cover my exact current opinion, so I voted "close" to what I thought, and will clarify a bit here.
I'm sort of indifferent to a ranking system.
I see the benefit of one in aiding hosts in creating games that match players of roughly equal skill together. And the players themselves might appreciate it as a way to "find themselves" in terms of their rough standing by skill within the community.
I also see a number of possible problems; most of these have been mentioned at one time or another in the long thread on the ranking system that is going on. In short, I think the game skill set is much too variable for a single number ranking. And it is also becoming clear that ranking results will be fairly subjective.
I think the creators are trying to address these issues, but have my doubts that it can be done in a simple manner.
The next two questions Kang proposed related to how the host will relate to the ranking system.
If the rankings are essentially host-driven than a host playing actively in a ranking game is a potential conflict of interest. Thus, the mention of using a neutral 3rd party to help with the process in these cases. The main issue here is what information is really needed to aid a host and/or 3rd party in making the judgement calls necessary for accurate rankings?
It's quite easy as an observer host to be oblivious to the diplomatic wranglings and maneuvering going on in a game. For a 3rd party things can easily be worse. Thus, beyond the obvious game results (score), how does one ascertain how well an also-ran race performed? Communications that the race made are an obvious place to look, but at what point does an also-ran get rewarded for being a good communicator and/or running a good PR campaign?
The last two questions are essentially cutting to the meat of the whole issue. Is the community on AH going to use a ranking system as players and/or as hosts?
As a player I view the ranking system as an additional feature of not that high of a value. I'm going to join/skip games depending on the interest the game set-up offers me, and whether I have the time available to properly play. Whether or not it's specifically a "ranking game" will not be an issue.
As a host I do not intend at this time to specifically earmark any new games as "ranking games" from the get-go. However, I will probably offer the players entering a game I host the option of voting to make a game a "ranking game" before it starts. (And if I get sufficient response for starting multiple games, then based on the results of said vote I may well end up with one game "ranking" and the other not.)
- Kurt
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Re: Should we create and use a system for ranking players? |
Mon, 29 March 2004 19:12 |
|
Crusader | | Officer Cadet 2nd Year | Messages: 233
Registered: January 2003 Location: Dixie Land | |
|
Player support, I believe, says it all very eloquently. No matter how everything else pans out, we are all such an independently thinking bunch of ne'er-do-wells that support will only come about so long as we are each having fun.
If it becomes too much hassle ...
Unfortunately, I don't see too many people willing to be "ranking hosts", which is going to put a crimp on things as well. I haven't read any clear directions on how the rankings will be determined in a clear and consistent manner, unless I've missed something on that thread. And it is obvious that the majority want a clear and consistent ranking system in place before the games begin. Having the host make subjective decisions at games end is just not a popular idea, if I'm reading these results correctly.
Understanding that my own opinion could well be coloring my interpretations.
But, whatever else this idea has done, it has sparked more interest than anything else in quite a while. For that reason alone, I support the public discussion of this idea for as long as it takes. I am willing to play in a ranking game for this reason. I'm willing to put up with a lot in order to promote Stars!
Including being called "tiger".
The Crusader
Nothing for now.Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: Should we create and use a system for ranking players? |
Tue, 30 March 2004 01:15 |
|
EDog | | Lt. Junior Grade | Messages: 417
Registered: November 2002 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA | |
|
Crusader wrote on Mon, 29 March 2004 17:12 | I am willing to play in a ranking game for this reason. I'm willing to put up with a lot in order to promote Stars!
Including being called "tiger".
The Crusader
|
Hey, Tiger, if it makes ya feel better, I'm thinking about making It's The Economy Stupid a ranked game (I'll ask the third party holding the passwords to do the ranking - btw, donjon, ya busy hosting all yer other stuff or can ya handle my game too, Yer Rankness?).
EDog
http://ianthealy.com
Born, grew up, became an adventurer
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|